Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: bamahead
Has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the original premise, nor is it a misquote.

See post 59, it is not only a widely used misquote, it's impossible for me to believe it's an accidental misquote.

69 posted on 08/09/2007 11:49:17 AM PDT by SJackson (isolationism never was, never will be acceptable response to[expansionist] tyrannical governments)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]


To: SJackson

Conceded and agreed.

When most people use the quote on isolationists terms, they use the latter half only, which simply states we need not become involved in foreign entanglements that don’t concern us or our interests directly.

If we are already involved by other means, those committments should be fulfilled.


77 posted on 08/09/2007 12:24:49 PM PDT by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; The majority are satisfied with a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]

To: SJackson

And if you’ll see # 38, you’ll see the statement by mnehrling that I originally responded to.

And I stand by that post wholeheartedly. That goes directly back to interpretation of constitutional intent and is at the very heart of the terms liberal vs. conservative.


78 posted on 08/09/2007 12:27:48 PM PDT by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; The majority are satisfied with a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson